Don’t believe the hype.
Yes, the Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond affair has been imperfect and prone to leaks - at least the Titanic only leaked the once, as one member observed - but it is very far from the partisan twisted witch-hunt its critics claim it to be.
Rather, over 190 pages and almost always consensually, the cross-party committee of MSPs paints a detailed and devastating picture of dysfunction at the very top of Government.
There is criticism from start to finish of the way senior officials behaved.
The harassment complaints procedure developed in the wake of MeToo in late 2017 was rushed and amateurish.
The way it was used for two complaints made against Mr Salmond in January 2018 was then riddled with problems.
MSPs found it “astonishing” that no one identified the conflict in the person appointed to investigate the complaints also providing prior support to both accusers.
The multiple roles of Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans, including deciding officer on the investigation, were also an avoidable “significant organisational risk”.
When Mr Salmond challenged the process in a judicial review, Ms Evans was at the centre of that process too, despite her part in the events that led to it.
It was her office in charge when the Government failed to hand over the documents which showed the lethal conflict over the investigating officer, thus prolonging the case and racking up extra costs to taxpayers.
Squarely pointing the finger, the MSPs said that, given Ms Evans was one the few people who knew about the prior contact, “it must be questioned” why she didn’t ensure that information was passed to the court earlier.
“This individual failing is as significant as the general corporate failing,” they said.
Worse, the failure to be candid was repeated with the inquiry itself, when ministers as well as officials held up its work with delays, junk paperwork deluges and withholding the legal advice showing how shambolic it had all been until the last minute.
The women failed by the initial process were thus failed again by a circus that left them feeling others would be less likely to complain of harassment in future.
Yet no one has resigned.
It is truly damning.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel